|
Post by jarhead1976 on Jun 12, 2011 18:02:56 GMT -5
Just a few. By Lynn Sweet on March 27, 2011 9:54 AM |
WASHINGTON---With federal income taxes due in a few weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent allied with Democrats, on Sunday released a list of ten big profitable U.S. companies paying little or no taxes. Sanders wants to close the loopholes that make this tax avoidance legal. Some people call the income tax system with generous loopholes for big companies corporate welfare or corporate entitlements. As Congress returns to work this week--after yet another break--to negotiate over big budget cuts--with social safety net programs facing reductions--Sanders is pushing for corporations to pay more of a fair "share."
The Bernie Sanders Ten, per release....
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jun 12, 2011 18:54:02 GMT -5
Re: Reply #30; Would an increased corporate tax rate or a return to pre-Bush Tax Cut rates have changed any of the ten listed examples? I think not, but would welcome any fact based counter argument.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 12, 2011 21:38:31 GMT -5
Sorry, after 30 years of Voodoo, the rich and corporatons and banks have money coming out of their ears. Cutting taxes on them further is Pub tax cult idiocy. Even in 1983, it was tax rises that triggered the recovery. Thanks for the depression, the fraud, and now the 24/7/365 gloom and doom, fear mongering, hoarding, and paralysis, Pubs. Anything to get back in power and screw us AGAIN... I am rich and I can assure you that there is no money coming out of my ears. We need lower taxes as that's what is the right thing to do. Yes, it will probably take longer to recover if taxes are cut on the rich. But what about doing the right thing? Is the recovery everything?
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 12, 2011 22:03:53 GMT -5
Yer ALL wrong. What got us to where we are today was exactly what is so flippantly tossed out there at anybody and everybody who is in busuiness.
"They don't pay high enough wages".
Would it matter if "they" paid a hundred dollars an hour and up for everybody on the payroll, , , everybody, , , everywhere . . . gets at least a hundred bucks an hour?
NO, it would not. Within the bat of an eye prices would have to increase in order to pay such wages and that would eat up the hundred bucks, and people STILL would not buy American products. . . . . unless and until , , , it cost more to buy foreign products.
Whatever the price is, , , I repeat, whatever the price is, , , , (and this applies to individuals as well as every other entity that makes up our economy), , , until Americans are willing to pay other Americans as much for what THEIR labor produces as they want for themselves, , , , we will have the problem of high unemployment.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jun 13, 2011 13:00:50 GMT -5
The employees in private enterprise must, on average, produce more income for their employers than they receive in benefits from their employer or the employer will go broke and out of business and the employees will lose "their" jobs. There are two attitudes which don't seem to grasp this truth: [1] That the government, since it doesn't have to make a profit, is superior to private enterprise and [2] Profits are evil since they do not place priority on the benefits of the employees and/or clients [customers, etc.]. The attitude seems to be that "we" [some undefined collective] can and will make better decisions based on the welfare of the general public [including employees] than the owner/managerial class and that "we" will operate through the power of government. There are those of us who believe that the "invisible hand" of supply and demand motivated by the "profit motive" provides superior results. We base our opinion on experience and the lessons of history. The "other side" bases its argument on what they describe as what's "fair." The truth [imho] is that when the "fairness" argument removes the incentive of profit [greed], it removes the motive power of the economy and leads to stagnation, the current situation being a good example. This showed up on MSN this morning: money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=9235655a-e9d6-49cc-86b3-7d8b90a38408&_nwpt=1 It illustrates one of those attitudes.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 13, 2011 20:28:11 GMT -5
The employees in private enterprise must, on average, produce more income for their employers than they receive in benefits from their employer or the employer will go broke and out of business and the employees will lose "their" jobs. There are two attitudes which don't seem to grasp this truth: [1] That the government, since it doesn't have to make a profit, is superior to private enterprise and [2] Profits are evil since they do not place priority on the benefits of the employees and/or clients [customers, etc.]. The attitude seems to be that "we" [some undefined collective] can and will make better decisions based on the welfare of the general public [including employees] than the owner/managerial class and that "we" will operate through the power of government. There are those of us who believe that the "invisible hand" of supply and demand motivated by the "profit motive" provides superior results. We base our opinion on experience and the lessons of history. The "other side" bases its argument on what they describe as what's "fair." The truth [imho] is that when the "fairness" argument removes the incentive of profit [greed], it removes the motive power of the economy and leads to stagnation, the current situation being a good example. This showed up on MSN this morning: money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=9235655a-e9d6-49cc-86b3-7d8b90a38408&_nwpt=1 It illustrates one of those attitudes. Where is Moonbeam? She called me greedy earlier.
|
|